Getting back to a relevant issue to Canadians and religion, I turn once again to the collection of essays in Uneasy Partners: Multiculturalism and Rights in Canada. This essay is Michael Valpy's "Seismic Tremors: Religion and the Law" and he expands upon Janice Gross Stein's "Searching for Equality" which focuses mostly on women's rights (or more specifically, the lack thereof) in traditional religions. He questions how we, as Canadians, must solve conflicts between religious rights and equality rights and discusses how these often conflict with one another. Before discussing the main issues he states: "I do not want a Canada that turns its back on multiculturalism" (p. 123) making it clear that he is not against multiculturalism or individuals' rights to it, but then brings up issues associated with this as well. He discusses the statistics in Canada relating to religion (only about 20% of the population regularily attend religious services while 85% claim to follow a specific religion) and how these figures fail in properly portraying a the increase in religious orthodoxy. British writer, Karen Armstrong, interviewed by The Globe and Mail, says that this religious fundamentalism exists as a "natural byproduct of a secular liberal society" and that "In particular... the emancipation of women has fuelled fundamentalism in all major religions, and Christianity has been 'the worst religion in the world for integrating sexuality and gender with the sacred'" (pg. 126-127). (I am quoting, I don't know what evidence she gives of this and that might be worth looking into, comparing Christianity to Islam and Judaeaism in their treatment of homosexuals and women). Valpry then brings up a series of recent religious incidents in Quebec. These include a Montreal YMCA frosting windows in a workout area so Muslim girls can exercise without men seeing them in their exercise gear, as well as a mix-up in pool schedules where there was a Muslim female swim class at the same time as a children's swim lesson which parents regularily watch but the fathers were forced out at the Muslim women's demands. At another community centre, he writes, men had to leave their partners in a prenatal class because a Muslim woman objected to their presence, and then also includes an incident where an Orthodox Jew, because of claims he needed to be home for the Sabbath, was allowed to cut in front of already waiting patients to see a doctor (pg. 128).
I do understand, especially in a country which supports multiculturalism, by bringing up such issues there is a need to exercise caution in my wording so that there is no mistaking criticism of specific incidences for an objecion to multiculturalism as a whole. The frosting of windows, to me, seems like a fair and not an unreasonable compromise as I am sure there are many women, not just Muslims or for religious reasons, who prefer privacy from men in a workout room. However, to look at this in the reverse if there was a request for a seperate men's gym this would be dismissed as being sexist, no? Same goes for the swimming lesson. If the women were promised a specific pool time away from the eyes of men, I understand how the gym would feel a need to honour this promise, but also how did the fathers feel being told that because they were born with a penis they could not watch their sons and daughters' swim lessons? If it were the mothers who were kicked out, there would have been protests against sexual discrimination. As for the prenatal classes, please correct me if I am wrong, but is it not important for the father or partner to also know what to expect? I am not sure what prenatal classes include but I am sure I can safely guess they focus primarily on the actual birth, which more men are choosing to be present for and assist with at least emotional support, as well as perhaps care for the newborn. With more women working today, men are also expected to help care for the child and should know what to expect and how to properly care for their child. I wonder if the community centre then offered men-only classes? I realize a male-only prenatal class may sound absurd but I think it would be interesting to see if the community centre offered any compensation for this. Perhaps too it could have offered a seperate class which was intended only for females at another time, but this too is problematic as it is still discrimination and also could take up more the centre's funding paying an instructor for the additional time, as well as maybe interferring with other events that would otherwise be taking place in that room. As for the case at the doctors office... was the same consideration given to patients who said they needed to pick their child up at a specific time, or make it to a meeting, or go grocery shopping before the store closed?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Certainly, like you say, frosting windows is quite a reasonable compromise, but you go on to say that the request for a separate men's gym would be viewed as sexist when in reality men's only gyms already exist.
I also agree with you that kicking the men out of the swimming lessons was an unreasonable approach to the problem, but if the men were willing to leave then I don't see it as a problem. It should also be remember that this is a business decision and often these decisions are made for economic reasons rather than rights or morality. The business was also put in a tough situation where they were forced to appease two groups with conflicting interests. I believe an appropriate approach would have been to reimburse the families that had the children's swimming lessons for that lesson as a way of apology for any inconvenience.
It does seem a bit ridiculous that the men would have to leave a prenatal class because one women had an objection, especially if they were paying to be there. But again it is more likely a business decision than a moral decision. If the business felt that it would be more economically beneficial to kick the men out than to tell the one woman to tough it out than their decision was obvious. Also as far as I'm aware it is not necessary to have men attend prenatal classes and wouldn't even make sense for the men to attend men's only prenatal classes. As far as I'm aware prenatal classes just deal the pregnancy and birth, not the actual child care. Men are often attending prenatal classes just to show support. Perhaps the men were relieved to be kicked out ;).
Using religious ceremonies as an excuse to cut in line for a doctor seems completely unreasonable to me. The individual could not have been in that serious of a health state if they were already waiting in line. If they are unable to schedule their time effectively then I see no reason that anyone else should have to suffer. The person should have been told to come back at a different time, like any other individual, if they did not have time wait.
Post a Comment